Gaylord hotel project: Colorado EDC responds to lawsuit

Attorneys for the Colorado Economic Development Commission have asked a Denver County District Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed over the proposed Gaylord Rockies hotel and conference center in Aurora.

The EDC argues in its response to the suit that its central premise — that its initial approval of tax incentives for the project was conditional and was not followed quickly enough by a separate written resolution — is wrong.

The response also states that while Aurora officials did not disclose to the EDC that they’d failed to get judicial approval for a plan to issue revenue bonds in connection with the project, there also was no requirement that the city disclose that information before the commission granted it as much as $81.4 million in tax-increment financing over the next 30 years.

The response was filed Nov. 4 by LeeAnn Morrill, first assistant attorney general for the state’s public officials unit. Morrill said during Thursday's EDC meeting that she is waiting now for a briefing schedule.

Eleven hotels sued the EDC and Aurora in September, asking a judge to require that the nine-member commission reconsider its May 2012 award of incentives to the project because the project has changed substantially.

Since the award, the original developer -- the former Gaylord Entertainment Co., now reorganized as Ryman Hospitality Properties Inc. -- was replaced by Rida Development Corp., and Rida has said in a financing document that it may be able to lower the proposed $824 million cost of the project by as much as $89 million.

Key to the argument in the lawsuit is the idea that the May 2012 approval was only conditional. In its response, the EDC continues to claim that the approval was final and that the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs taking action has run out.

The hotels amended the lawsuit in October to argue also that Aurora essentially invalidated its incentive agreement with Gaylord Entertainment when it failed to get judicial confirmation of its plan to issue revenue bonds in connection with the project. The amended lawsuit notes that, had the EDC known of this, it might have voted differently on the incentive funding.

The response acknowledges several times that the EDC did not know about the lack of judicial confirmation but denies that Aurora was required to disclose that information.

Aurora filed a separate lawsuit earlier this month against the hotels, saying that their actions are interfering with its efforts to proceed with building the hotel. That suit is proceeding separately.